Paul Wallbank – Brilliant Communications

Author: Paul Wallbank

Facebook starts driving away brands
A few days ago we looked at how giving marketing and communications control to Facebook was a mistake for businesses.

It seems US entrepreneur Mark Cuban agrees and he’s moving his basketball team, the Dallas Mavericks, and the 70 businesses he’s invested in away from Facebook onto other social media channels like Tumblr or even MySpace.

The final straw for Cuban was Facebook wanting to charge $3,000 to reach a million of the Maverick’s online fans.

Facebook’s response that the sponsored post program is not just about the service’s revenue, but also to reduce noise and spam has merit

Last week tech uber-blogger Robert Scoble complained about the noise on social media and many users agree as they find their social media services and email inbox clogged with messages.

Reducing irrelevant noise is essential for any online service to succeed. No-one likes to spam or be spammed and many startup social media platforms have failed because they’ve killed their brand by spamming users and their contacts.

In this respect social media is like journalism – it has to be timely, relevant and useful to its users. If it isn’t the readers will leave and the advertisers will soon follow.

The worry for Facebook’s investors is that the service could be caught between making no money from its massive user base and getting a reputation for irrelevant spam.

Could it be that Facebook has more in common with newspapers and other “old media” than we thought?

Similar posts:
November 14, 2012
Who do journalists serve?
In an excellent video explaining how to pitch the tech media Milo Yiannopoulos, Founder and Editor-in-Chief of The Kernel and public relations agent Colette Ballou discuss PR and startups at the Pioneers Festival in Vienna.

One thing that jumps out from the presentation is Milo’s confusion about who their market is – at no time in the spiel does he mention readers or advertisers.

At one stage he says “we’re here to serve you,” this is to a room of tech entrepreneurs.

Milo’s focus raises the question about where do journalists add value and who they serve?

Traditionally that focus has been on giving the readers or viewers useful and valuable information.

In order to do this, the businesses employing journalists have either raised funds through advertising, subscriptions or government subsidies.

That in itself created conflicts and it took strong courageous editors and managers to resist pressures from advertisers and governments.

With the web stealing advertising revenues, journalists and the organisations that employ them have a problem.

The question now for journalists is where can they add value in a form that people will pay.

Maybe it is shouting into social media echo chambers or spruiking the wares of the latest hot tech start up although it appears those channels are no more profitable than the old forms of journalism.

Another point Milo makes in that presentation is pertinent as well;

The arrogance of a journalist is inversely proportionate to their talent. So the tech bloggers are massively arrogant and have huge opinions of themselves.

Ne’er a truer word spoken.

The question remains though, who do those bloggers or journalists serve?

Similar posts:
November 13, 2012
Desperate Ken and market realities
Ken Slamet has a problem, his in-laws are trying to sell the family house and no-one will give them the price they want.

The house at 228 Warrimoo Ave has been on the market through an agent for more than 100 days, pulling in ridiculously low offers, Mr Slamet said.

Depending on the deposit, Mr Slamet is seeking between $1.5 million and $1.6 million for the house his wife grew up in.

One would argue that those “ridiculously low offers” are actually Mr Market giving Ken and his in-laws a slap of reality. They are simply asking for too much money.

St Ives, a suburb on Sydney’s Upper North Shore, is going through demographic change. In 1960s and 70s St Ives was the suburb for successful stock brokers and bankers, however in the 1980s and 90s that demographic decided they wanted to live closer to the city and Harbour and suburbs like Mosman and Clontarf became their areas of choice.

For Ken’s in-laws and their neighbours, this is bad news as few other people can afford 1970s mansions on large blocks within 30km of Sydney. Those who do manage to sell often find the buyers are developers who sub-divide to build townhouses or apartment blocks, madness in a congested, car-dependent suburb with poor public transport links.

Adam Smith’s invisible hand of the market is giving those holding properties that were attractive to stockbrokers in 1972 a nasty slap over the head in 2012.

Ken though has a solution for his problem – he’s offering a rent to buy scheme at a mere snip of $2297 per week. An amount 70% higher than the average Sydneysider’s gross income and a whopping four and half times the city’s average rent of $500.

Good luck with that.

The real problem is that Ken’s in-laws are stuck with expectations higher than the market reality. Like many of us in the Western world, they believe their assets are worth more than they really are.

As the global economy deleverages there will be many more people like Ken’s family. For many the transition to a less wealthy lifestyle is going to be tough.

Similar posts:
November 13, 2012
Incurious George and the cult of managerialism
“Do you not read papers?” Thundered the BBC’s John Humphrys to the corporation’s Director General during an interview over the broadcaster’s latest scandal.

That exchange was one of the final straws for the hapless George Entwhistle’s 54 day leadership of the British Broadcasting Corporation where the Jimmy Savile scandal had seen him labelled as ‘Incurious George’ for his failure to ask basic questions of his subordinates.

Humphry’s emphasised this when discussing the Newsnight program’s advance notice of the allegations they were going make;

You have a staff, but you have an enormous staff of people who are reporting into you on all sorts of things – they didn’t see this tweet that was going to set the world on fire?

A lack of staff certainly isn’t the BBC’s problem, the organisation’s chairman Chris Patten quipped after Entwhistle’s resignation that the broadcaster has more managers than the Chinese Communist Party.

George Entwhistle’s failure to ask his legion of managers and their failure to keep the boss informed is symptomatic of modern management where layers of bureaucracy are used to diffuse responsibility.

In every corporate scandal over the last two decades we find the people who were paid well to hold ‘responsible’ positions claimed they weren’t told about the nefarious deeds or negligence of their underlings.

Shareholders suffer massive losses, taxpayers bail out floundering businesses and yet senior executives and board members happily waddle along blissfully content as long as the money keeps rolling in.

If it were just private enterprise affected by this managerialism then it could be argued that the free market will fix the problem. Unfortunately the public sector is equally affected.

Managerialism infects the public service as we see with the BBC and it’s political masters and the results are hospital patients die, wards of the state abused, known swindlers rob old ladies and agencies continually fail to deliver the services they are charged to deliver.

Again the layers of management diffuse responsibility; the Minister, the Director-General and the ranks of Directors with claims to the executive toilet suite’s keys are insulated from the inconvenience of actually being responsible for doing the job they are paid to do.

Managerialism and incuriousity are fine bedfellows, in many ways Incurious George Entwhistle is the management icon of our times.

Similar posts:
November 12, 2012
Social media’s free ride comes to an end
One of the mystifying things about the ways businesses use social media is the willingness of companies – big and small – to give their customer lists away to social media sites.

The best example of this is Facebook, when your customers like you or comment on a post they are added to the service’s database. Facebook gets to ‘own’ your customers and generally Facebook gets to know your customers better than you do.

With the arrival of Sponsored Stories on Facebook we see the next step which monetizing their business functions. Now when a business puts a post up on Facebook, it only appears in 15% of their followers’ feeds. To get to the rest of them a business has to buy a sponsored story.

Not only has Facebook taken ownership of thousands of businesses’ customers, it now charges those business to talk to their own clients.

Should the business decide not to pay for sponsored stories then they find traffic from Facebook drops off. Some businesses report traffic dropping from 30,000 views a day to 5,000.

To counter this one website stumped up the money for a sponsored story that advises their Facebook fans to follow them on Twitter and Google+ instead.

Facebook’s move on this isn’t surprising as they desperately search for revenue streams to justify their huge stockmarket valuation.

What also isn’t surprising is that the free ride for businesses on social media platforms is over.

All too often we’ve heard marketing gurus tell us Facebook and other social media services were free advertising channels.

That view overlooked the time and patience required for executing an effective social media campaign along with the reality that social media services were only free for as long as the investors underwriting the enterprise were prepared to accept losses.

We understand that advertising on TV, radio or print costs money and now we’re having to accept that social media marketing costs as well.

How well Facebook goes with sponsored stories remains to be seen, but the message for businesses is clear – the social media free lunch is well and truly over.

Similar posts:
November 11, 2012